Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds two behaviours the annotations don't: the default direction and the default sort order ('newest first'). It doesn't mention pagination behaviour (though start/limit are schema-documented), so it's strong rather than exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the direction mapping is front-loaded and the default-sort note follows compactly. Nothing repeats the tool name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, fully documented 9-parameter list tool, the description supplies the two facts an agent can't infer cheaply: which direction values map to which business concept and that results default to newest first. Return shape is undocumented (no output schema), but the field/pagination params cover the essentials.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with pattern, range and defaults. The description restates the direction semantics and the default sort that the schema also carries, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List orders') and immediately splits it into the two order types with their underlying Czech evidence names ('objednavka-prijata' for customer orders, 'objednavka-vydana' for purchase orders). That distinction lets an agent separate this from the invoice and contact listers in the sibling set without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete selection guidance: direction 'received' means customer orders and is the default, 'issued' means purchase orders to suppliers. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this' or a named alternative tool (e.g. the invoice listers), so it stops short of 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.